Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Victims of the 2009 shooting at Fort Hood in Texas that killed 13 people and wounded dozens more are outraged that the Obama administration refuses to classify it a act of terrorism. The Department of Defence has ruled the November 5th shooting was a case of workplace violence. Unfortunately for these brave Soldiers, the circumstances surrounding their deaths and wounds they experienced didn't fit into President Obama's narrative that terrorism perpetrated by Muslim extremists doesn't exist.

The reality is that on the fateful morning, Major Nidal Hasan was standing among his fellow Soldiers at the Personnel Processing Center. The center is a hub of post where Soldiers do necessary paperwork before and after a combat deployment. Its here that they complete wills and powers of attorney and the myriad of other personal details that need to be addressed before they ship out into harm's way, leaving their worried wives, husbands and children at home. It was here, surrounded by Soldiers and civilian persons that Hasan opened fire. Eye witness reports state that was shouting ''Allah Akbar'' as he gunned down and killed the 13 victims, including a pregnant woman and wounded another 31.

It was later found that Hasan consulted by email with top al-Qaid leader Anwar al-Awlaki about whether an attack against American soldiers was justified ''to protect our brothers,'' according to Stars and Stripes. Awlaki, who was based in Yemen, was considered a top enemy by the U.S. He was thankfully killed in an airstrike last year. For Hasan, the shooting ''was his jihad,'' Staff Sgt. Alonzo Lunsford said. He was shot five times in the incident. Shawn Manning, another victim, said that the soldiers ''were killed and wounded by a domestic enemy, someone who was there that day to kill soldiers to prevent them from deploying. If that's not an act of war or an at of terrorism, I don't know what is."
On November 17th, 2009, Texas Senator John Cornyn introduced a bill to the Senate that would authorize awarding the Purple Heart Medal for the Defence of Freedom to those military victims. It would award the civilian equivalent Defence Medal to the civilian victims as well. On the same day, CNN quoted Congressman John Carter as saying, ''As far as I'm concerned, this was an attack by an enemy upon American troops on American soil. This bill is about giving soldiers the benefits that other soldiers get when they are unfortunate enough to be killed or wounded in a combat zone.'' Classifying the shooting as terrorism will allow the victims to receive combat-related special compensation that provides disability pay for medically retired service members.

To further this effort, a provision was added to the 2012 Defense AppropriationsAct that would finally authorize the Purple Heart Medal for the victims of the attack. Unfortunately in a report from the Office of Management and Budget, it was stated that keeping the provision for the Purple Hearts would cause the president to veto the bill. It read, ''The Administration objects to the section which would grant Purple Hearts to the victims of the shooting incidents in Fort Hood, Texas and Little Rock, Arkansas.'' (this eludes to a Muslim convert who spent time in Yemen and was an avowed jihadist, killing one soldier and wounding another in a drive-by shooting at a recruiting office,in Little Rock and was tried and sentenced to life in prison.)

The Way I See It.....the debate is whether or not the person shooting them was an enemy combatant. The Obama administration has called the shooting an incident of ''workplace violence.'' This is no disgruntled Postal Worker getting even for some slight but a man on a ''mission'' to kill for his religion. You see, if this cynical president acknowledges the Fort Hood shooting an act of terror and Nidal Hassan as an enemy combatant, that would run contrary to his campaign talking points that al-Qaida specifically and terror in general is ''on the run.''

Meanwhile, a military appeals court judge has ruled that Hasan, who remains hospitalized from gunshot wounds received from two police officers who responded to the shooting, can have his beard forcibly shaved before the trial. The trial has been delayed for months over this stupid issue of Hasan's facial hair, which he said he grew for religious reasons (after the shooting). But thankfully the judge this decided with the military court rules requiring defendants to appear in court in uniform and clean-shaven. If I were the judge I'd have every family member of the killed and wounded show up at his bedside and with tweezers and each one have a go at pulling out this Muslim deadshit's beard hair very slowly. Then go for the chest and genital hairs.....that's closure for you!

Sunday, October 28, 2012

President Obama has put special ops strike forces on standby and moved drones into the skies above Africa, ready to strike militant targets from Libya to Mali -- if CIA investigators can find the al-Qaida linked group responsible for the death of U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans on that terrible night in Benghazi on September 11th. Details on the administration's position and on its search for a possible target were provided by three current and one former administration official, as well as an analyst who was approached by the White House for help. All four spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the high-level debates publicly.

However, the officials say the administration, with a week and a half away until the presidential election, is weighing whether the short-term payoff of exacting retribution on al-Qaida is worth the risk that such strikes could elevate the group's profile in the region, alienate governments the U.S. needs to fight in the future and do little to slow the growing terror threat in North Africa. The dilemma shows the tension of the White House's need to demonstrate it is responding forcefully to an al-Qaida, that Obama bragged was finished with Bin Laden's death, balanced against its long-term plans to develop relationships and trust with local governments and build a permanent U.S. counterterrorist network in the region.

''With the election less than two weeks away, they are aiming for a small pop, a flash in the pan, so as to be able to say, 'Hey, we're doing something about it and Obama should stay another term,''' said retired Air Force Lt. Col. Rudy Attalah, the former Africa counterterrorism director of the Department of Defense under George W. Bush. Attalah noted that in 1998, after the embassy bombing in Nairobi, the Clinton administration fired cruise missles to take out a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan that may have been producing chemical weapons for al-Qaida. ''It was a way to say, 'Look, we did something,''' Attalah said.

Finding the militants who overwhelmed that small security force at the consulate isn't going to be easy. The key suspects are members of the Libyan militia group Ansur al-Shariah. The group has denied responsibility, but eyewitnesses saw Ansar fighters at the consulate that night and U.S. intelligence intercepted phone calls after the attack from Ansur fighters to leaders of al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb bragging about it. The affiliate's leaders are known to be mostly in northern Mali, where they have seized a territory as large as Texas following a coup in the country's capital.

The burden of proof for U.S. covert action weighs heavily, but action by the CIA or Special Ops forces still requires a body of evidence that shows the suspects either took part in the attack or presents a ''continuing and persistent, imminent threat'' to U.S. targets, current and former. But if the U.S. acts alone to target them in Africa, ''it raises all kinds of sovereignty issues....and makes people very uncomfortable,'' says Robert Grenier, former director of the CIA's Counterterrorism Center. He added, ''Even a strike that happens with permission could prove problematic, especially in Libya or Mali because both countries have fragile, interim governments that could lose popular support if they are seen allowing the U.S. unfettered access to hunt al-Qaida.''
Longtime Congressmen Pete Hoekstra -- former chairman of the powerful House Intelligence Committee -- said, ''This presidency, this administration has been very, very reluctant to go after terrorism through the intelligence community, you know, doing no enhanced interrogation and really pulling back boots on the the ground -- the kind of intelligence that you need to ba able to identify the low-life Islamic scum that were responsible for the Benghazi attack and stop them in their tracks. I'm not sure that we've got the kind of up-to-date intelligence that will enable us to attack with any kind of precision.'' He continued, "I'm more worried about the kind of flippant response coming from Obama that we saw back in the 1990's....just to score so political points so close to the election.''

The Way I See It....I am not surprised the Obama administration has leaked plans for a possible retaliatory strike. Barack Obama's government has dug itself in such a deep hole on Benghazi with either total incompetence/or the lies that have been coming out of this administration. I'm not at all surprised that we're hearing about these things only now. This administration, after the embarrassment of Benghazi, is now going to try to do everything that they can to look really, really tough on radical Jihadists. Obama said on Friday, ''My biggest priority right now...is bringing those folks (?) to justice.''

The difficulty President Obama faces is how he can coordinate such an attack without acknowledging that al-Qaida is still a major threat and that his strategy in Northern Africa and parts of the Arabian Peninsula is in a shambles. They will have to admit that even though bin Laden was killed, al-Qaida is alive. It's thriving. It has breeding and training grounds in Northern Africa -- these all developed after the Arab Spring and that this isn't an Arab Spring. It is an Arab Upheaval. It has given some great opportunities for al-Qaida to reconstitute itself and prepare itself for further attacks on America. The next President must drop Obama's ''leading-from-behind'' policy and challenge these anti-American forces head on!

Saturday, October 27, 2012

It gets worse for Obama's security credentials -- which amounts to the boast that he authorized the killing of Osama bin Laden, but not the Islamist fundamentalist filth killing his ambassador, Chris Stevens. (photo below)

Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that ''an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command -- who also told the CIA operators twice to ''stand down'' rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept 11th. What were they thinking??

Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate where Ambassador Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to ''stand down'', according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to ''stand down.'' Woods and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The rescue team from the CIA annex evacuated those who they found in the consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the annex at midnight.

At that point they called again for military support and help because now they were taking fire at the CIA annex. The request was denied. In fact, one member of the team climbed the roof and was manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired on the compound. The officer had a laser on the target that was firing on them and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Spectre gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide to teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours -- enough time for any planes, based just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has learned that two separate Tier One Special Ops forces were told to wait, including Delta Force operators. Tyrone Woods was subsequently killed during that night defending the ambassador's staff he had rescued.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told reporters at the Pentagon on Thursday that there was not a clear enough picture of what was occurring on the ground in Benghazi to send help. The latest information says he is a down-and-dirty liar! It's just come to hand that apparently the White House situation room was watching those people die in Real Time from an overhead Drone, as it was happening! Military sources say that military help could have ''come above the area and completely carpeted the area with firepower,'' and therefore saved many more lives on that horrendous night in Benghazi.

The Way I See It....there's a very good chance that the White House as well as other members of the military knew what was going on and obviously had to say, don't go rescue them. We have seen Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, throw herself under the Benghazi bus to save Obama's hide.. Now we need to find out who it was that actually gave the command -- ''do not rescue them.''ADDENDUM:Obama, Biden and Hillary Clinton attended a memorial service at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland for slain Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods. His father, Charles Woods, relates his first meeting with President Obama. ''When the President came over to our little area he kind of just mumbled, you know, 'I'm sorry'. His face was looking at me, but his eyes were looking over my shoulder like he could not look me in the eye. It was not sincere, but he spoke again, 'I'm really sorry, you know, that your son died,' but again it was totally insincere, more of a whining type voice. Woods says that shaking Obama's hands that day was ''like shaking hands with a dead fish, it just didn't feel right.'' Woods says, he wants answers on what happened that night and why there was no apparent effort to save his son's or anyone elses life.

Woods says Hillary Clinton seemed more sincere in her words of comfort to him but Charles was completely blown away by Vice President Joe Biden. This buffoon approached this grieving father during the memorial service and said in an easily overheard voice, ''Did your son always have balls the size of cue balls?'' Shocking!!And there are supposedly intelligent people in America who want FOUR MORE YEARS of these heartless, low-life scumbags in the White House! Double shocking!!

Friday, October 26, 2012

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has produced an 8000-word report assailing President Barack Obama for instituting an Imperial presidency. If it wasn't bad enough that that Obama has broken all records in creating over 900 Executive Orders (EOs) in his first term, this bypassing of Congressional approval, has allowed him to make laws on every imaginable subject. This is something I brought up in previous postings and declared that some actually seemed devious in their intent. More about that in a future posting.

Even The New York Times noted recently on its front page ''an increasingly deliberate pattern by the administration to circumvent lawmakers.'' It seems they have suspicions that their ''GoldenBoy" could be up to something. Pieces appearing over the course of the past several months in the main Obama ass-kissing media like the Washington Post, National Review and the Wall StreetJournal have talked about his ''imperial presidency.''

The Obama administration's lack of respect for the law is hampering economic growth and individual prosperity, particularly the jobs market. ''Property rights and rule of law are essential for the proper and efficient functioning of society and the economy,'' Cantor states, ''You have to follow the law if you want your citizens to respect the law as well.'' He went on to explain, "When laws are created without going through Congress; when laws are selectively executed; when an administration intervenes into the normal judicial process and diminishes an individual's property rights rights; and when normal regulatory process is circumvented, the rule of law is eroded."
That's exactly what happened under Obama. Cantor continues, ''While administrations of both parties have been known to test the bounds of the limits of their power, the breadth of the breakdown in the rule of law in recent years has reached new levels.'' Cantor's report cites more than 40 examples of the White House's lack of respect for the law. This includes:

Ignoring Advise and Consent, such as through the recess appointments he made.

Creating laws such as changing the unionization process, telling businesses where they are allowed to locate, telling federal contractors who they have to hire.

Waiving Bill Clinton's inspired work requirements under welfare, claiming the power to define what constitutes religious employment; lobbying for abortion overseas and the contraception mandate. Also cynically failing to defend Clinton's Defense of Marriage Act.

Government By Waiver, such as education policy by waiver and health care laws waivers; and creating new programs Not Authorized by Congress, such as the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation, new ''super'' agencies, the Healthcare Independent Payment Advisory Board and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. And many more that disregard the legislative authority and the Constitutionally-required separation of powers.

The Way I See It....this is no way to govern. The President has set a precedent that even his supporters should find troubling, but his inner circle of socialistic cronies knows that Barack Obama is emulating Lenin in striving to increase state control over such, as Lenin put it, ''commanding heights'' of America's economy as energy, health care, finance and education, with smaller forays into food, transportation and some I may be overlooking. Besides mimicking some of Lenin's policy strategies, Obama also has adopted Karl Marx's strategies for gradually socializing the economy as a whole.

That being said, if one reviews Marx's 10-point platform for how to socialize a country's economy in stages (The Communist Manifesto, Chapter 2), one finds that Team Obama and their progressive allies have taken actions to further the goals laid out in all 10 planks in Marx's platform. Check on it with Google or Bing. Obama still seems to believe that it is how hard one works or how smart one is that should determine income.

The economic truth that eludes him is that in a market economy, honest participants prosper to the extent that they deliver value to others. The reality is that value is not the same as effort or potential. It seems that only a minority of people have the talent of successfully and economically providing value for others. Those entrepreneurs are society's economic benefactors, creating wealth and jobs for their fellow citizens. Contrary to Obama's views, society's wealth generators merit respect, not scorn; praise, not derision; gratitude, not envy.

As a sign of the diminishment of President Barack Hussein Obama, it is hard to top his newly released pamphlet, ''A Plan for Jobs & Middle Class Security.'' The plan purports, first to be a plan and second, to outline a second-term agenda distinct from his first term agenda. It fails on both counts. It cobbles together his current policies with some ill-defined new bullet points to barely 20 pages and largely devoted to nice pictures of el Presidente.

Make no mistake: What the Obama agenda lacks in substance, it makes up in graphic design. The pamphlet has as much gloss and as many soft-focus photos as a copy of Playboy. The question arises; why would the president wait until 14 days before the election, after the conventions and debates, to release his plan? And then print 3.5 million copies of it, making the plan a publishing phenomenon to rival ''Dreams of My Father.''
It's obviously the panicked realization that his campaign's attempted destruction of Mitt Romney hasn't worked and isn't enough to win. The Obama-Ass-kissers, the NBC and Wall Street Journal, poll this week found 62% of people want major changes in a prospective Obama second term. An 4%, that's almost down to Obama administration officials and immediate family, want more of the same status-quo presidency. If the pamphlet works, it deserves to join the ranks of the classic picture books of all time, right up there with ''Go, Dog, Go!'' and ''The Very Hungry Caterpillar.'' In an amusing touch, it has a table of contents -- as if readers would have trouble navigating the extensive volume.

The pamphlet's ''reviving American manufacturing'' section touts the creation of a new network of 15-20 manufacturing innovation institutes and a new trade enforcement unit (probably instigated by another EO). Heady stuff. The big idea is a reform of the corporate tax code. Obama calls for reducing rates and making up revenue by closing tax preferences and loopholes -- in other words, exactly what Romney is proposing for income taxes and what the president deems utterly impossible.

The ''energy made-in-America'' section takes credit for the country's oil and gas boom, to which the president has been a bystander. Its celebration of subsidies for green-energy makes it clear that the president has learned nothing from the scandals and disappointments of his first years of lavishly funding alternative energy. It's the same old ''carry-on regardless'' philosophy.

The upshot of the ''putting you in charge of your health care'' section is that if you liked ''Obamacare'' in the first term, you'll love it in the second. The pamphlet doesn't mention the roughly $2 trillion in new spending, nor the $5000 billion in new taxes, nor the Congressional Budget Office estimate that 20 million people could lose their employer-provided health insurance. (Those points must have been crowded out by the inspiring photo of Obama discussing weighty matters with a half-dozen doctors in white coats.)

On the deficit, the pamphlet touts the same ole $4 trillion plan, which is a little more than a hoary talking point. On entitlements, the president's plan evidently is to do nothing, since he already gutted Bill Clinton's sensible 1994 Welfare Plan by removing the one motivating factors that made it work and save government money; if you don't look for work, your welfare cheque stops. Also, he'll do nothing on Medicaid, do nothing on Social Security and do nothing on Medicare, except pretend that his $716 billion in cuts to fund ''Obamacare'' were a boon to the program.

The Way i See it.....the pamphlet is quite a comedown for the president. Gone are the days when he was over-promising. Now, he's trying to cover for his lack of anything new to promise. The Berlin speech in 2008 and this second-term pamphlet are the exact opposites of the Obama phenomenon. He has gone from airy and grandiose to airy and picayune in the span of four short years.

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Mitt Romney had a strategic victory in the third debate today, which Barack Obama needed to win.

Romney decided to smile and be the moderate that Obama wanted to claim he was not. He did not say a single thing to support Obama's attack that he was risky and prone to war. He didn't savage Obama even on Libya, reserving his one real attack (other than on the economy) on the Obama ''apology tour'', with plenty of damning examples of Obama having signalled weakness.

He was also very effective in repeatedly bringing the economy into the argument on foreign affairs, making the point that a weaker America could not command respect or project the power to make it safe. He also had the second best line of the night, which helped to neuter Obama's barrage of attacks: ''Attacking me is not an agenda. Attacking me is not talking about how we're going to deal with the challenges of the Middle East.''
Romney also avoided making any mistakes in an area in which the incumbent usually has the advantage. He spoke fluidly on all areas, without spelling out any profound difference with Obama on future policy. Overall impression: Romney was a very pleasant, confident, ''sunny'' man -- a bit of Reagan -- who could bring that famous ''morning in America'' feeling. He was capable and had his eyes firmly on creating jobs -- more central to the election than foreign affairs.

Barack Obama did not do badly....pushing his socialist government-will-fix-things line. In fact, he had the best single line of the night in picking up Romney for his complaint that the navy hadn't had so few vessels in a century. Obama pointed out things had changed: ''Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets.'' -- a sharp put-down spoiled only by an unpresidential rudeness. Indeed, Obama's aggression throughout, trying to paint a contrast that Romney largely wanted to paint out, verged on the snarky, but at times Obama seemed more familiar with the issues under discussion. This was more a result of his direct exposure to these issues over his term.

But what will voters think most important to them? Obama's foreign policies subtleties or Romney's program to restore America's economy? What style would impress most -- Obama's aggression, nuances and condescension or Romney's genial optimism and air of the practical man? Given those two questions, Romney gained most from this debate.

The Way I See It....you can score this debate a win on energy for Obama, but a win on the facts and the long game for Romney. Moderator Bob Schieffer was probably the best of the three presidential moderators. Both candidates got roughly the same amount of talk time, neither got the patently false Candy Crowley fact check.

Mitt Romney accomplished what he set out to do today. He went toe-to-toe with the sitting, snarking president three times and acquitted himself well enough to have the majority of thinking Americans see him as the next President of the United States.

UPDATE: President Obama got a Twitter drubbing tonight as a result of comparing U.S. Navy ships to obsolete war horses and bayonets. One Twitterer said, ''We're sure that all of our fine sailors appreciated hearing their Commander in Chief (now being called Commander McSnark) declare them obsolete.'' As for those denizens of the interwebs, well, someone should have told the president how memes work before they gave him that line. Oh...right, he was being prepped by John Kerry. Never mind!

Sunday, October 21, 2012

As many of you know I have extensively researched Barack Obama's life, his numerous ties to radicalism and socialists, and I have written about it over the past year on this blog site leading up to this crucial presidential election. Now with only a few weeks away I am saving the worst for last. By that I mean, the worst is yet to come if Barack Hussein Obama is re-elected president of the United States. As an Ex-Pat I am fearful that all those brain-washed University Zombies, the Hollywood airheads, the lazy illiterates on welfare, the Marxist Jews, the beholden Blacks, the backdoor Hispanics and now let's not forget the thankful Gays, will vote this Manchurian Candidate back into another 4 years of power. It's time for me to reveal the closely guarded second-term policy initiatives this far-left president fully intends to impose on America after his re-election, when he will have -- as he told the Russian president --''more flexibility.''

Back on August 23rd I posted an article entitled, ''Can America Survive 4 more years of Obama? in which I listed some of the 900 Executive Orders Obama signed during his first term that sounded absolutely devious. These EOs, which don't need Congress' approval, cover everything imaginable including a list of emergency powers, power to nationalize (not seize) private assests and even a sinister one he signed (EO 13618) in July called the ''National Defense Preparedness." Upon further digging I came across the shocking plans behind this EO. I will be laying out the shocking details in my next blog posting. But first let me give you a prophetic look into exactly what will happen in a second term with Barack Obama.

Former President George W. Bush was fond of the expression, ''Fool me once, Shame on you....fool me twice, Shame on me.'' I have just finished Aaron Klein and Brenda Elliott's chilling new book, ''Fool Me Twice: Obama's Shocking Plans for the Next Four Years Exposed'' (WND Books). I recommend it as must-reading for all Americans, but particularly for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. In their run for the White House, the GOP standard-bearers don't seem to realize what they are up against and by extension, what lies in store for all citizens if they are not victorious this November. This book is Klein & Elliot's third in-depth political study of Obama (something not found in the lame-stream media) that'll inform the American public of his agenda should he capture another term.

Their first book, ''The Manchurian President'' (2010) examines Obama's lifelong ties to anti-American radicals; the ''The Red Army'' (2011) explores Obama White House links to the Marx-inspired policy world where, in ''progressive'' legislation, the foundations of Obamacare, for example went unnoticed for years before being passed in 2010. In ''Fool Me Twice" they examined thousands of documents, including inititives from the Center for American Progress, or CAP (the Obama administration's ''idea factory'', as Time Magazine calls it); many pieces of legislation introduced by ''progressives'' in Congress; and both well-known promises and those sneaky executive orders I told you about. The authors describe the ''secret template for Obama's next four years.'' -- the one actually created by Obama's own top advisers and strategists.

Just as Obama concealed the true plans for his initial term behind rhetoric of ending partisan differences and cutting the Federal deficit, Obama's re-election theme FORWARD (using an iconic 100 year old Communist slogan) of creating jobs conceals more than it reveals about his real agenda. In meticulous detail, the authors lay out the plans of Obama and his allies, plans that seek to permanently remake America into a government-dominated socialist state. Here are just a few samples from dozens of specific schemes unveiled here:

Detailed plans to enact single-payer health care legislation controlled by the Federal government regardless of any Supreme Court decision to overturn Obamacare.

The recreation of a 21st Century version of FDR's Works Progress Administration (WPA) program within the Department of Labor (more like forced-labor using EO 11000) that would oversee a massive new bureaucracy and millions of new Federal jobs.

Further gutting of the U.S. military in shocking ways, while using the savings to start a radical increase in spending for a green stimulus program and the founding of a Federal green bank to fund so-called (but actually useless) environmentally friendly projects.

The vastly reduced resources of the U.S. Armed Forces will be spread even thinner by using them to combat ''global warming,'' (even though warming hasn't increased in 16 years!) fight global poverty, remedy ''injustice,'' bolster the U.N. with more ''peacekeeping'' deployments.

An expansive new amnesty program for illegal aliens linked with a reduction in the capabilities of the U.S, Border Patrol and plans to bring in untold numbers of new immigrants with the removal of caps on H-18 visas and green cards.

You can look forward to a slew of job-killing EPA regulations that will strangle economic growth, destroy millions more jobs and dramatically raise the price of goods, the cost of electricity and the price of gas at the pump. Welcome to living in the third world!

A campaign, by stealth, which ''progressives'' (let's be more accurate and call them anti-American bastards!) started in 2006, is under way to change the very nature of American presidential elections. Under the title ''National Popular Vote'', this organization of leftists are pushing a plan that would disallow the traditional Electoral College System and allow the 14 most populous States, mostly majority-Democrat, to determine the outcome of future presidential elections and disenfranchise the 36 less populous States. Under a second Obama term its chances for success are enormous and would give Americans less democracy, all in the name of given them more. This is the ultimate in vote fraud.

The Way I See It....Obama is not merely the presiding instrument of American decline, he is the architect of American decline. He wants America to be downsized, He wants Americans to consume less, and he would like to see the standard of living decline relative to that of other nations. He seeks a diminished footprint for America in the world. He detests (like he father did) America's allies, like Britain and Israel and seeks to weaken them; he is not very worried about radical Muslims acquiring a nuclear bomb or coming to power in countries like Tunisia, Libya and Egypt. He is quite willing to saddle future dollars and generations toward this end and if he had been permitted, he would have spent trillions more.

This president has shown no inclination, and has no desire, to protect America's position as number one in the world; he would be content to see America as number 18 or number 67, just another second-tier economy with other nations, where China, India and even Brazil are wealthier and dominant. It is completely congruent with who Obama is and what he does. We don't have to assume that he is always unlucky in getting results opposite to what he intends; we simply have to see that he intends the results he is getting. He emphasized in his inauguration speech his goal of ''remaking America'' --and he is doing it, recognizing that in order to remake America he must first unmake America. He and Joe Biden must be killing themselves laughing at the many suckers that believed in their Hope and Change conspiracy. The only question is whether Americans approvce of their country being diminished and downsized and whether they are too stupid to give Obama another four years to finish the job.

The danger is that 2012 may not only be the most important election ín American's lifetimes, but that it will be the last chance they have to save liberty as Americans have known it since 1776.

Friday, October 19, 2012

It's bad enough when you have leftist-media idiots trying to find racist ''code'' in Republican candidates speeches. Like referring to ''Chicago'' is anti-black because Obama was a community organizer there, or ''apartments'' because most blacks live in apartments, or even ''inner city'' for the blacks in those neighborhoods. God-forbid Romney or Ryan come up with referring to apartments in Chicago's inner city.....the media will have a field day!

Now, I hear of a Australian douchebag living and blogging in New York City telling Australian readers she's also just heard racist speak in the U.S.A. This new-wave professional feminist, Chole S. (for Stupid) Angyal writes:The United States is possibly about to grant its first black president a second term in office. And yet, in the nearly four years since he was elected, coded racism has become a part of the natural conversation like never before. Romney stood up in front of a television audience of 60 million people and said that gun violence in America happens because poor black single women are bad mothers.What Mitt Romney actually said about gun violence and families is this:But let me mention another thing. And that is parents. We need moms and dads, helping to raise kids. There are a lot of great single moms and single dads. But to tell our kids that before they have babies, they ought to think about getting married to someone. It's a great idea, because if there's a two parent family, the prospect of living on poverty goes down dramatically. The opportunities that the child will be able to achieve increases dramatically. So we can make changes in the way our culture works to help bring people away from violence, giving them opportunities and bringing them in the American system.Romney said nothing like what this smart-ass twit claims. Moreover, if he is a racist then so is Barack Obama, who seconds after Romney spoke, added:I think that's one area we agree on is the importance of parents and the importance of schools, because I do believe that if our young people have opportunity, then they are less likely to engage in these kinds of violent acts.Susan Olden is astonished it is now racist to speak the truth about the link between the disintegration of families and crime. She points out just a few of many studies:When children born to a single mother, they tend to show higher levels of aggressive behavior than children born to married mothers. Source: Osbourne, C. & McLanahan, S. (2007) Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 1065-1083 Adolescents, particularly boys, in single-parent families were a higher risk of committing crimes against property and people. Source: Anderson, Amy, Journal of Criminal Justice (11/2002)
It is Angyal who imposes on Romney's identification of a real social problem - and social tragedy - a racial spin, knowing statistics reveal the breakdown in families has been particularly devastating in the African-American community. Almost 70% of black children are born to single mothers and more likely to be poor and pass that poverty on to their children.So I guess Bill Clinton must be a racist, too:In his 1994 State of the Union Address, he announced: ''We cannot renew our country when, within a decade, more than half our children will be born into families where there is no marriage.''The great (black) comedian Bill Cosby must be a racist, too: No longer is a person embarrassed because they're pregnant without a husband. No longer is a boy considered an embarrassment if he tries to run away from being the father of the unmarried child. The lower middle class are not holding up their end in this deal. These people cry when their son goes to prison. I ask them...where were you when he was two? Where were you when he was twelve? Where were you when he was eighteen and how come you didn't know he had a pistol? And where was his father and why didn't he show up to talk to his son?The Way I See It....the only person who seems keen to peddle negative stereotypes seems Ms Chole S. Angyal herself, damning Romney as one of the fabled racists of the Right for saying what Obama, Clinton, Crosby and the many research papers with their facts all support. She has drunk from the trough of biased swill of the American leftist media and has lost her Australian breeding of giving a Bloke-a-Fair-Go, but then again, blokes according to her feminist moral radar are mainly mysogynist anyway.

Of course, Barack Obama has never been too far away from playing the Race Card. A liberal group, sanctioned by the govrnment, called ''The Message'' made a YouTube video saying that Romney is so white he makes ''WonderBread look like pumpernickel.'' The president often aids and abets the divisiveness, even setting up a national campaign organization, ''African-Americans for Obama." This attitude of his and the media supporting him is divisive and does nothing in uniting the country to deal with the current economic crisis.

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

The second presidential debate, held at my old alma mater, Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York saw a much more aggressive Barack Obama in this brawl of a debate..... un-presidentially so. At times he seemed even to unsettle Romney with it. This will cheer his side, but I doubt it will much impress anyone else. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, once again seemed likable, capable and purposeful. This will confirm the impression he gave in the first debate, where to many voters he would have introduced himself for the first time. This second encounter will cement that good presidential image he naturally has.

In pure debating technique, Obama probably won. But the overall impression will not help him, because Romney was strong in pointing out the President's real weakness - a lack of performance over the past four years. Romney was very strong in his central pitch - ''we don't have to live like this.'' But if Obama won, it was because Romney failed to seize his big chance on the Benghazi scandal. First, he didn't point out Obama's failure to answer a blunt question from the audience; who in the Administration turned down the request from the State officials in Libya for more security before the September 11 attack and why? Even worse, Romney did not pick up on an Obama fudge - a fudge outrageously endorsed by the CNN hostess with a hooker's name; Candy.

When Romney pointed out that it took a least 10 days before for Obama to even call the events in Benghazi an act of terror, Obama responded that he did call it an act of terror in the Rose Garden on 9/12. Candy Crowley jumped in, interrupting Romney to support Obama's statement with, ''Yes, he did.'' Actually he sort-of did, but it was used as a generic ''act of terror'' term at the end of his remarks in which he repeatedly referred to the attack being a response to the Mohammed YouTube video. Specifically, Obama said, ''No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.''
Crowley's intervention to support Obama, in my opinion, was inappropriate, unfair, and lop-sided. She acted like a cheerleader, true to her ass-kissing media company (CNN) and as a result of her unprofessional conduct, she provoked pro-Obama zombies in the audience to clap. But Romney has only himself to blame for not knowing exactly what Obama had said that morning after the Benghazi attack and not for asking Obama: ''well, if you really did say it the morning after the murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens that it was an act of terror, why this?'':

But four days later, Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., went on five networks' Sunday shows and cast the attack as hardly a coordinated strike by terrorists. Saying that the best information the government had was the fact that it was not a preplanned, premeditated attack but a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video.Why did you later say this, Mr President?: Obama taped an interview on ABC's ''The View'' on September 24th, nearly two weeks after the attack, in which he declined to label the attack terrorism when asked. Instead, he would only go as far as to say the attack''wasn't just a mob action.'' That said, this will keep the debate going and hurt the president.

The Way I See It....I suspect in the end, voters will focus more on the economy, their bills, their jobs and the crumbling of so many of Obama's promises four years ago. And they will vote for hope - which this time isn't Obama. Not the Obama they saw today. To decide who won the debate, it should be critically scored based on which candidate did a better job of actually answering the questions.

To quote an American friend, James R. Tyrer, who agreed with the above comment, saying, ''my first impression is that it was not Obama, since at times he seemed like he had been stuffed with too many of the Democrats National Convention sophistic talking points and so just started spewing them out. Once, I think that early in the debate he strung 3 or 4 of them together with no relevance to the question asked of him. So, scoring this as a REAL DEBATE, I would say Romney won, but not by a large margin.'' I agree with James and that is why I titled this posting Too Small A Win For Obama.

Monday, October 15, 2012

With global attention fixated on Iran's nuclear program, an equally significant development for Iran's strategic outlook is being overlooked. The Shiite Crescent that began to take shape in the wake of the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq has effectively receded. Regardless of the outcome of the nuclear issue, Iran poses a much smaller threat to the region than it did just a few short years ago. A number of events have converged to put Iran back in the box it now finds itself in. The most obvious and consequential of these are the onset of the Arab Spring and the uprising in Syria.

The concept of a Shiite Crescent was predicated on an unbroken chain of Iranian influence stretching into the heart of the Middle East via Iraq and Syria, and continuing on to the Levant and Palestine through Tehran's ties with Hezbollah and Hamas. Given its location, Syria was always the lynchpin of this crescent. The loss of a friendly government in Damascus would deny Iran an overland route to ferry supplies to Hezobollah in Lebanon. Iran's only option would be to supply Hezbollah by sea.......a perilous course given that the waters in between are dominated by Tehran's adversaries. In either scenario, then, Iran's aid to Hezbollah is set to steadily decline.

Significantly, this decline in aid will coincide with Tehran demanding more from its Lebanese ally as its low level conflict with Israel and the U.S. intensifies. Hezbollah's willingness to continue shouldering these costs cannot be taken for granted, especially given its growing domestic troubles. Without Hezbollah''s support, however, Iran's ability to wage an asymmetric campaign against the West is very much in doubt. Indeed, this year's string of failed attacks on Israeli diplomats and interests has demonstrated quite clearly the limitations of Iran's asymmetric capabilities. Also, the Arab Spring has significantly curtailed Iranian influence in Palestine by straining Iran's relationship with Hamas...likely irreversibly. The relationship between Tehran and Hamas, a Sunni group, was always built more on mutual necessity and Hamas' new links with Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood has allowed it to pivot away from Iran.

The Syrian uprising and the Arab Spring, important though they are, are only the most prominent examples of Iran's diminishing fortunes. Nearly as consequential are Iran's growing economic woes. Instead of using the extra revenue from high energy prices to address the structural defects of the Iranian economy, the government exacerbated existing problems by increasing subsidies to he lower classes that comprised this peasant dead-shit President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's main constituencies. This policy's weakness became evident when the global financial crisis caused a sharp drop in the price of oil and natural gas, forcing Ahmadinejad to revamp his generous entitlement spending. Iran's economic outlook remains dim for the foreseeable future, in part due to the Western sanctions on its energy, shipping and banking sectors.

According to recent estimates, sanctions have already caused Iran's oil exports to decline by 45% and reduced the value of its currency, the rial, by 80% relative to the dollar, including an incredible 40% drop in the past week. The people are growing restive. Furthermore, the sanctions' impact are likely to be magnified by the economic downturn that the world's largest rising powers, including China andIndia, are now facing. As their own economic production declines in the near term, these states will have less incentive to cheat and circumvent the West's sanctions against Iran. Additionally, as the global economy slows, whatever oil Iran is able to sell ill come at a lower price, further draining the Iranian treasury.

The Way I See It....Iran's regional position has suffered due to greater pushback it is encountering from regional and extra regional states. Some of this is inevitable given the anxiety Iran's post-2003 rise caused among the Arab states, Israel and the United States. Nonetheless, Iran's own policies have only added to its troubles. In particular, its stupid threatening to push Israel into the sea or just wipe it out militarily. Also threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of global oil supplies travels, has proved to be a major strategic blunder. It caused jittery Arab states to more openly align with the U.S. against Iran, as evident from, among other things, their reported willingness to consider hosting larger missile defense systems, as well as their participation in the massive U.S.-led naval exercise in the Strait of Hormuz last month.

I see that Iran's continued support for the Assad regime has sapped its soft power in the Arab world, which has afforded Arab leaders greater freedom of action in balancing against Tehran, in part by strengthening regional organizations that exclude Iran, including the Arab League and the GulfCooperation Council, while undercutting organizations that Iran is a member of, such as OPEC. While the world continues to focus on Iran's nuclear program, Iranian political standing in the Middle East has suffered a string of serious setbacks. Iran's centrifuges may continue to spin, but the sun has set on the Shiite Crescent, for now at least.

Two battles could kill the presidency of Barack Obama-- one with al-Qaida and the scarier with Hillary Clinton. We all know by now that on September 11, a heavily armed Islamist militia linked to al-Qaida launched a coordinated attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, killing the U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and three others. Bizarrely, the White House for 10 days insisted this attack with machine guns and mortars was just one more protest against as anti-Islamic video clip on YouTube.

White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters during a press conference last week that responsibility for the consulate in Libya fell on the State Department, not the White House. However, Sen. Lindsey Graham leveled conspiracy charges against the White House for attempting to cover up the terrorist attack. Graham said on CBS' Face the Nation he knows for a fact the administration was told within 24 hours of the incident it was carried out by al-Qaida operatives. He said, ''They're trying to sell the narrative that the mid-East wars are receding, and al-Qaida has been dismantled and their silly leading-from-behind didn't work. When something goes bad, they deny, they deceive, they delay then the blame-game starts while the real truth is, we're not safer. Al-Qaida is alive even if bin Laden is dead.'' Yesterday, Hillary Clinton's State Department released the transcript of a briefing on the Benghazi attack that makes Barack Obama seem a liar.

It seems Obama doesn't mind biting the hand the feeds him. Former president Clinton has been working overtime to drag Barack's butt across the election finish line. Clinton, using his substantial credibility, has been hands-down President Obama's most effective advocate. So how is Obama awarding Clinton for his heavy lifting? By throwing Hillary under the Benghazi bus it appears. To save his political career, Obama would more than likely even throw his own grandmother under the bus. And Biden's 2016 presidential ambitions (no, I'm not joking) provide him with an extra incentive to see Hillary become the fall-gal for Benghazi.

With tensions between President Obama and the Clintons at a new high, former President Bill Clinton is moving fast to develop a contingency plan for how his wife should react if Obama attempts to tie the Benghazi fiasco around her neck. Ed Klein, best-selling author of "The Amateur", says, ''I'm sure Bill Clinton is furious. He is not taking this lying down.'' Klein says that sources close to the Clintons are telling him that Bill has assembled an informal team to discuss how Hillary should deal with the issue. ''If blame for the security failures falls to Hillary Clinton, it's possible that she would even consider resigning over the issue,'' Klein said.

But as for the chance that Hillary would resign, Klein said in an interview; ''At this moment, it appears unlikely that she's going to do that. I men it would be an extreme step for her to take. Not only would it be hard to predict how it would play out as far as Hillary is concerned in the future, but it would certainly damage Obama's chances for re-election if she resigned.''

The Way I See It....if Hillary resigned before the election, Democrats would never forgive her for undermining Obama's election chances in a fit of pique. If she resigned after the election, assuming an Obama victory, the president probably would happily accept it, and she would be out in the cold. That might not be a terrible place to be considering what a second Obama term likely would hold in store. However, Hillary would be leaving under a cloud. If she is left with this stain on her reputation, it could seriously damage her chances for election in 2016. And this is what is really bothering Bill more than anything.

UPDATE: Today (16 October) Hillary Clinton decided to fall-on-her-sword and called a press conference to take the blame for the Benghazi fiasco. She said it was her State Department's responsibility for security matters and the President and Vice-President didn't handle those matters directly. She also said that her coming forward would avoid ''a gotcha'' moment with just 3 weeks till the election. I guess Hillary saw on what-side-her-bread-was-buttered and sucked-it-up to stay in the Democrats goodbooks. How it will reflect on her political future is anybody's guess. For Obama, it's not over yet...I can assure you.

According to an article in the Daily Mail (U.K.) last Thursday, President Obama walked off the stage after his underwhelming debate performance convinced he was the winner. Against viewers and a breathlessly fawning press who winced through it he was sure he delivered the rhetorical goods. He only realized he sank like a Chevy Volt dropped in water after his senior aides broke the news to the surprised and disturbingly oblivious Commander-in-Chief. Apparently the most transparent President in history is also the least self-aware. It does raise the question of whether Obama's political success has owed more to luck than skill.

Those very same senior aides had been wrought with anxiety for weeks that Obama wouldn't fare well since he stubbornly (read stupidly) refused to rigorously prepare: ''President Obama made it clear he wanted to be doing anything else -- but debate prep. He kept breaking off whenever he got the opportunity and never really focused on the event.'' Obama even poked fun at his own reluctance to hunker down; ''It's a drag. They're making me do my homework." Some aides anonymously revealed that Obama's disdain for Romney runs so deep he considered preparation for the debate beneath him. His dripping contempt was palpable on the stage, as he refused to make sustained eye-contact with Romney, looking down at his shoes as if they were outfitted with a teleprompter.

In fact, it was obvious that he did not adequately prepare but now we know it wasn't the the altitude or a demanding schedule (the day before the debate he visited the Hoover Dam much to his advisors' chagrin). He shirked what would seem like a top priority duty because he couldn't muster even the duplicitous feint of respect for an opposing viewpoint, disgusted that someone has the audacity to challenge his official proclamations. We had our growing suspicions confirmed, despite all the contentless folderol about the virtue of bipartisan cooperation he spouted during his first campaign for resident, Obama loathes dissent and only begrudgingly and condescendingly tolerates being contradicted. His brand of strident confidence (read arrogance) crosses a line into elitist hubris, shorn of every follicle of humility, convinced that all who disagree with him are benighted fools or evil adversaries. See my Aug/Sept postings on Obama's Un-Holy Trinity to see how well he was mentored.

In other words, there is something at the heart of Obama's animating ethos that abhors democracy (his Marxist upbringing), which necessarily gives free reign to a spirited exchange of competing ideas. His famous thin-skinned hypersensitivity (see July posting Mr & Mrs Cranky Pants), is a symptom of a lack of self-reflection -- criticism shocks him like a personal offense since it never really occurs to him that he might be wrong. And given our persistent economic doldrums, our embassies being attacked across the globe, Iran's inexorable march towards a nuclear bomb, the increasingly bombastic assertiveness of China and Russia, and an unemployment rate that remains too high, there are good reasons for him to reconsider his convictions. But alas, he marches on into blissful oblivion, convinced he's winning the war of ideas effortlessly, assured his floundering is perceived by the world as triumph.

The Way I See It....this raises even shouts out, the question: what other issues only appear to him through the filter of happy self-deceit? Does Obama really believe our enemies in the Middle East are so charmed by his swagger that they would ever coordinate an attack on our embassies? Is he convinced we are grateful he has kept us unburdened by the crushing demands of regular employment? Is he under the impression Americans are thrilled with debt going into the stratosphere and managed by a socialist bureaucracy?

It is hard to imagine Obama will do much better in the next debate, unless better means meaner and more aggressively mendacious. his biggest vulnerability at the podium is his dour resentment for having to be there in the first place, piqued that he should have to account for himself before the people that elected him, that he purportedly represents.Obama will attempt to feign interest but will only manage angry indifference -- debates are for disciples of democracy, not technocratic kings.

Sunday, October 14, 2012

So now we know what Team Obama's comeback plan was following last week's defeat in the Presidential debate. Unleash Joe Biden to interrupt, filibuster, snarl and smirk and otherwise show contempt for Paul Ryan, as Obama obviously did to Romney. By unofficial media counts, ''Buffon'' Biden interrupted the Republican some 85-100 times. Mr Ryan let the bully get away with too much for my liking. No doubt the performance cheered Democrats who needed cheering after last week, but I wonder how well it played with independents or those undecided voters who tuned in and were hoping to learn something.

Mr Biden had his strongest notes on foreign policy. He too glibly rolled past the murders of four Americans at the Benghazi consulate a month ago (mimicking Obama's ''a few bumps along the way'' analogy) while attributing the Administration's false early explanations to ''the intelligencecommunity.'' "We didn't know the attack wasn't over the Muslim video!" Biden exclaimed. I doubt that's what the investigation will ultimately show. Biden also contradicted evidence given at a congressional hearing the day before revealing that extra protection for the Libyan posts had been requested and U.S. officials refused extra security prior to the Benghazi assault.

During the spirited sit-down battle, Mr Ryan was stronger on domestic issues. Even here, though, the debate devolved into an exchange between Mr Ryan's policy details and Mr Biden's free-association appeals to emotion and class solidarity. However, Biden said deadly serious things about the economy. On housing and equity markets Paul Ryan could have used Biden's seemingly offhand comments to remind the public that the Obama administration is indifferent, at best, to free-market solutions to America's economic woes. It's the political rut of keeping taxing the rich and keep those entitlements coming. Mitt Romney shouldn't let any similsr chances go to waste at next week's town hall debate.

Free markets are more efficient in fixing their mistakes than Washington is -- ironically, the free-market solution is helping Obama now. People across the U.S. can perceive the worst is over. It follows that with the slightest drop in the unemployment rate of 7.8% they have a bit more confidence, a change in psychology showing up in consumer-spending figures. Romney and Ryan should acknowledge that people feel better and explain why they do; it had nothing to do with the White House.

The Way I See It....the trends aren't looking good for Team Obama. The latest Rasmussen Reports survey of Likely Florida Voters finds Romney with 51% support to President Obama's 47%. Also deep trouble in the 11 key swing states; Colorado, Florida, Iowa Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin giving Romney 49% to Obama's 47%. So, Joe Biden may have shaded Paul Ryan in the debate, but he did so by telling a few porkies that might now bite Obama's campaign...Mitt are you listening?

It sure looks like Biden put the blame on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, his potential 2016 rival, for the security failings at Benghazi. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney backed up Biden's declaration by saying ''it's a State Department issue.'' Will Hillary now retaliate and protect herself by leaking word that the White House DID TOO know?

Why is Obama in trouble? Maybe because when times get tough--record deficits, huge numbers of unemployed, American ambassador murdered--he's the kind of guy who decides to stick up for a 2 meter tall yellow multi-millionaire in one of the most embarrassing childish campaign ads ever screened. (See YouTube: Big Bird - Obama for America TV Ad) Obama spokesperson Jen Psaki, speaking on board Air Force One on the day of the debate; ''There's only one candidate in this race who is going to continue to fight for Big Bird and Elmo, and he's riding on this plane.''

She's right!!! The United States is the first nation in history whose democracy has evolved to the point where its leader is provided with a wide-body transatlantic jet in order to campaign on the vital issue of public funding for sock puppets! You'd have to laugh...if it wasn't so pathetic.

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Bishop E.W. Jackson, of the Virginia-based Exodus Faith Ministries, recently released a video calling for African-Americans to make a mass exodus from the Democratic Party. Jackson delivered stinging blows to both Democrats and the African-Americans who continue to support them, while decrying what he sees as a ''slavish devotion to the Democratic Party.'' He continued, ''They have insulted us, used us and manipulated us. They have saturated the black community with ridiculous lies. They think we are stupid and that these lies will hold us captive on their 'plantation' while they violate everything we believe as Christians.''
Jackson went into detail in the video, taking aim at the ''unholy alliance'' that he sees between Democrats, faux-civil rights leaders and Planned Parenthood. ''This unholy alliance has millions killed millions of black babies.'' he proclaimed. On the morality front, Jackson took issue with the party's internal debate over ''GOD'' being dropped from its platform and explained, Of course, this is consistent with President Obama's tendency to quote the Declaration of Independence as 'we are endowed with certain inalienable rights,' leaving our the word 'Creator.' He also derided the notion that homosexuality should be equated ''with being black" and the push to make same-sex marriage a Democrat initiative.

This month he'll be sending out an Open Letter to the church communities all across the United States urging them to realize that the Democrat Party is about to become the party of Christian persecution if Obama gets a second term. He says, ''Already they call us bigots and haters for not bowing to political correctness regarding same-sex marriage. They call us Islamophobes because we are concerned about Islamic radicalism and Sharia law. They say we hate women because we fight for the lives of unborn children. They are supporting the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt under the guise of the Arab Spring. Ask Israel about the Arab Spring and the attitude of their new neighbor on their border. The long peace is over with Egyptians torturing and murdering Coptic Christians and burning down their churches. These policies of turning a blind eye can be laid on the Democrat Party doorstep.''The Way I See It....the United States of America is a Judeo-Christian nation based on faith, individual liberty and personal responsibility. The Democrat Party as the intellectual and spiritual carriers of Marxist doctrine believe America must be fundamentally transformed. The most fundamental change they can make is to get God out of the picture. That alone will open the door to a whole host of policies contrary to the Constitution and way of life. Bishop E.W. Jackson wants to awaken Jews and Christians across America to the reality that they are being used by Obama and his party that actually hates everything they stand for.

Think about it. Did you hear one prominent Democrat denounce the Democrat Mayors of Boston, Chicago, San Francisco or Pittsburgh for threatening the CEO of Chick-Fil-A, Dan Cathy, because of his support for traditional marriage? The fact is that what these Democrat Mayors did was a clear violation of the spirit and letter of the Constitution. They were seeking to use governmental authority to restrict and punish a man for his sincerely held religious views. That is not the action of elected representitives in a Constitutional Republic. That is the actions of tyrants. Something you can look forward to if Obama and his Marxist minions get four more years of making their own rules.

Monday, October 8, 2012

Even before his inauguration, Barack Obama was an imaginary man, the creation of his admirers. Think back to the 2008 Time magazine cover depicting him a FDR, the Newsweek cover on which he was shown casting Lincoln's shadow, or the $1.4 million Nobel Peace Prize awarded to him ''for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples'' -- this is 2009, less than a year after he had taken office. It was not that Obama had done nothing to deserve these outsized comparisons and honours -- it was not just that he had done nothing -- it was that he seemed for all the world to be a blank screen on which such hysterical fantasies could too easily be projected, a two-dimensional paper doll just waiting to be dressed in leftist dreams.

The idea was that this hollow identity was his own insidious creation, the result of sealed college records, votes of ''present'' in the Illinois state senate and a supra-partisan persona carefully crafted after a scuttled lifetime of revolutionary ferocity in a Marxist milieu. Obama has disowned the depth of his past associations with such fire-breathing America-haters as Bill Ayers (''A guy who lives in my neighbourhood'') and Jeremiah Wright ("He was never my spiritual mentor'' [see Obama's Un-Holy Trinity posting] with startling unconcern. And such previous Obamas as the race-baiting, black-talking demagogue of a 2007 video recently discovered that is not all apparent in the Oval Office Obama. But I think the real Obama has been more or less plain to see. Norman Podhoretz described him best in a 2011 Wall Street Journal op-ed: ''a typical product of the anti-American academic left, committed to transforming U.S. capitalism into a social-democratic system like Sweden's''
The Obama of the imagination is the media's Obama. It emanates from a journalistic community that no longer in any way fulfills its designated function, that no longer attempts the fair presentation of facts and current events aimed at helping the American electorate make up its mind. These left-wing outlets like the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, NBC News, ABC News, and the CBS News have fallen prey to that ideological corruption that sees lies as a kind of virtue, as a noble deception in service to a greater good. Theirs are largely passive lies and lies of omission. The real corruption is revealed in the way Obama scandals like Fast and Furious, Benghazi-gate and repeated breaking of federal campaign laws have been wildly underplayed, while Romney's simple gaffs are blown out of all proportion.

And it is revealed in Obama' blankness, his make-believe greatness, and the suppression, ridicule and dismissal of any evidence that he is not the man this powerful media faction once wanted so badly for him to be. No other modern president could have associated so intimately with lowlifes like Ayers and Wright and the now-imprisoned scumbag Tony Rezko and not had those associations exposed in every detail. No other president could have made the radical remarks he's made -- about wealth distribution, religion and the federal government's alleged ill-treatment of blacks --and not had them headlined all over for weeks. No other could have presided over such a crippled economy and such universal failures at war and in foreign policy and escaped almost without mainstream blame.

The Way I See It....the media's fascination with the colour of his skin and their mindless awe at his windy teleprompted rhetoric, they constructed a man of stature and accomplishment. Now, with the White House at stake, they're waging an ongoing battle against the undeniable evidence that he has never been, in fact, that man. The result in these autumn days has been media coverage of a fantasy election, an election in the news that bears no relation whatsoever to the election as it is. Polls consistently skewed to favour Democrats in percentages beyond any reasonable construct of reality have left Americans virtually ignorant of the state of the race. Orchestrated frenzies over gaffes by Mitt Romney have camouflaged an imploding Obama foreign policy, an Obama economy threatened by a new recession and an Obama campaign filled with vicious personal attacks and lies.

Governor Romney's unprecedented dismantling of the president in their first debate was surprising not only for Romney's warmth and clarity but for Obama's hapless fumbling, bad temper and inarticulate inability to defend his record. They were simply facets of the man as he truly is, unfiltered by the imagination of his shocked media supporters: a man who has succeeded, really, at almost nothing but the winning of elections; a man who cannot distinguish between his ideology and life; a man who does not seem to know how the machinery of the world actually works. Fantasy is a powerful thing, but reality will out. Perhaps by Election Day, the public will have awakened from the media's dream.

Sunday, October 7, 2012

The fact that so many successful politicians are shameless liars is not only a reflection on them, it is also a reflection on us. When the people want the impossible, only liars can satisfy them and only in the short run. The current outbreaks of riots in Europe show what happens when the truth catches up with both the politicians and the people in the long run.

Among the biggest lies of the welfare states on both sides of Atlantic and Pacific is the notion that the government can supply the people with things they want but cannot afford. Since the government gets its resources from the people, if the people as a whole cannot afford something, neither can the government. There is of course the perennial fallacy that the government can simply raise taxes on ''the rich'' and use that additional revenue to pay for things that most people cannot afford. What is amazing is the implicit assumption that ''the rich'' are all such complete fools that they will do nothing to prevent their money from being taxed away. History shows otherwise.

After the British government raised their income tax on top income earners in 2010, they discovered that they collected less tax revenue than before. Other countries have had similar experiences. Apparently the rich, were investing huge sums of money in tax-exempt securities and in today's globalized world economy, the rich can simply invest their money in countries where tax rate are lower. It's a No-Brainer.....except for politicians in Labor, Liberal (Democrat) and Socialist leaning governments who have Shit-for-Brains! So, if you can't rely on ''the rich'' to pick up the slack, what can you rely on? Lies!

Nothing is easier for a David Cameron, Barack Obama or Australia's Julia Gillard (see photo) than promising government benefits and generous entitlements that cannot be delivered. The promises that are made are for money to be paid many years from now, (i.e. Social Security, Disability Care, Obamacare, etc) and somebody else will be in power then, left with the job of figuring out what to say and do when the money runs out and the riots start. As the day of reckoning approaches, there are a number of ways of seeming to overcome the crisis. The government refusing to pay what it costs to get things done. Like cutting what doctors are paid for treating Medicare patients is one obvious example. Or like the Australian labor government instituting a Mining Tax, just as this sector is experiencing a downturn in exports and then cynically have a Carbon Tax and use the excuse to "Save-the-World from global warming.'' And now we read that Biden says Obama wants to raise $1 trillion in taxes on the wealthy, just days after the vice president said the ''middle class has been buried the past four years.'' Will these idiots ever learn?

Of course, Obama realizing that the government is running out of money is printing more. A third stimulus is in the making but that doesn't make the country any richer. It quietly transfers part of the value of existing money from people's savings and income to the government, whose newly printed money is worth just as much as the money that people worked for and saved. Printing more money means inflation -- inflation is a quiet lie, by which a government can keep its promises on paper, but with money worth much less than when the promises were made. The Way I See It....eventually, all these long-run problems catch-up with the wonderful-sounding lies that are the lifeblood of welfare state politics. See the states of Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal as products of stupid Socialist practices. But, no worries, there will be a lot of those elections between now and then and those who are good at political lies can win a lot of those elections.

Is it so surprising voters with no brain to delve into a government's actions on entitements and their consequences, reading only lame-stream media (whose lies are largely passive and lies of omission) and carrying unrealistic hopes that their selfish needs can be met, will elect politicians who lie about being able to fulfill those hopes? Both Australia and America are heading for a bad case of the ''European Disease.''

Friday, October 5, 2012

Over 50 million people watched the first of three scheduled Obama vs Romney debates. In Denver last night the visuals were great for Romney and awful for Obama. Obama looked small, tired, defeated after four years of failure...out of ammo. The verdict was unanimous: it was a great night for the forces of good sense.

Through the evening, Romney came across as the competent executive, in command and optimistic. Obama was defeated and deflated, whose ideas have been tried and found wanting. I don't know how the Democrats will try to spin this one, but it just doesn't matter. There was only one credible leader on the stage and it wasn't our failed president.

It's difficult to see how Mitt Romney could have been much better than he was in last night's debate. Romney was crisp, forceful (without being disrespectful or obnoxious), and almost always on point. Most importantly, he was vibrant and even passionate. As for Obama, he paled in comparison. The president's performance was subdued; he was far less inclined to address Romney's points than Romney was to rebut his; and he tended to ramble and repeat himself. Obama was using hackneyed anecdotes about his dead Grandmother and looked lost and bewildered without his teleprompter. He had his head down frequently which gave the impression that he was enduring the debate rather than fighting it. One small point among many: Obama doesn't even know how to stand at a podium, as he continually lifted one leg (girlie fashion). He would be below average as a High School debater.

Popular Wall Street Journal journalist, James Taranto, long ago advanced an observation called the ''Taranto Principle.'' In short, it means that the liberal (socialist) media so coddles liberal politicians that they have no idea how to cope outside the liberal media bubble. Barack Obama has been so totally coddled by the liberal media that he looked absolutely shell-shocked in this debate. Stunned, unhappy, angry, sour and a some points genuinely incoherent. Mitt Romney has had nowhere near that kind of treatment. He had serious opponents in the primaries -- all of how in their own way forced him to confront his ideas in a serious fashion. The Obama media never let up, so the man went through the political equivalent of boot camp. Last night, outside the liberal-bubble -- forced to be alone on a stage with a very serious, very prepared candidate -- Barack Obama was in BIG trouble!

The Way I See It....the reason you get the impression that Romney is ''void of sympathy'' is because you are observing the haughty, disconnected caricature of a Romney that the lame-stream media likes to paint of conservatives. The real Romney is a patriot, a family man with religious morality, a guy with common sense and a business head for getting things done. This morning, Obama tried to do damage control by claiming that the man on stage was ''not the real Romney.'' I would say, ''On the contrary, Mr Obama, that was the real Mitt Romney. You've been campaigning against the liberal media's distorted portrayal of him, but now you've met the real man.''
The true sign the US is colour blind will come when voters are as ready to sack Barack Obama as they were to choose him. Perhaps this paradox defines this political season. That Obama is African-American may be important, but in a way quite unlike that darkly suggested by, for example, MSNBC's excitable boys and girls who, with their (at most) one-track minds and exquisitely sensitive olfactory receptors, sniff racism in any criticism of their pin-up, pop-star messiah. I think MSNBC's Chris Matthews didn't feel ''a thrill up his leg'' listening this time to Obama like in 2008. The nation is about to sober-up and admit they made a mistake in choosing him, regardless of colour.

Wednesday, October 3, 2012

First Question: Did Obama's Administration ignore requests for more protection for his diplomats in Libya?
White House press secretary Jay Carney declined to comment on an assertion by the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that requests from diplomats in Libya for added security prior to September 11 (2012) attack on their diplomatic post in Benghazi were denied. Yet earlier, chairman of the committee Rep. Darrell Issa and Rep Jason Chaffetz, the chair of the subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Operations, wrote to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, asserting that ''multiple US federal government officials have confirmed that prior to the attack, the US mission in Libya made repeated requests for increased security in Benghazi. The mission however was denied these requests by officials in Washington.'' This was in spite of 13 listed incidents leading up to the attack ranging from I.E.D. and RPG attacks to a ''posting on a pro-Gaddafi Facebook page'' publicizing early morning runs taken by the late Ambassador Chris Stevens and his security detail.Second Question: Was the US warned by its allies of the growing threat in Libya from al-Qaeda?
The real Smoking-Gun is whether the Obama administration was warned in advance that al-Qaeda was planning an attack. A number of Israeli newspapers have said that Washington was warned as early as September 4th (a week earlier) that the environment in Benghazi was becoming increasingly hostile and anti-American, while the London Foreign Office took the decision to withdraw all its consular staff from Benghazi two months before the murders. This decision was based on intelligence indicating that al-Qaeda was openly operating in the area following a failed assasination attempt of Sir Dominic Asquith, Britain's ambassador to Libya, in June.

Third Question:Why did Obama then seek to blame what was clearly a terrorist attack on September 11 on the US consulate in Benghazi on a YouTube film clip?
It took TWO weeks after the Ambassador and three Marines were murdered in Benghazi that the Obama administration finally conceded it was an act of terrorism. Hillary Clinton admitted that it was part of a broader effort by al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. Yet 10 days ago, US Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice was trotted out on every Sunday talk show to blame the massacre on a mob inflamed by the YouTube video which insulted the Prophet Muhammad. (see previous posting)

She kept stating; ''This was not a preplanned, premeditated attack. What happened initially was a spontaneous reaction to what just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video. People gathered and grew increasingly violent. Those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons and that then spun out of control.'' Behind this gross misrepresentation was the need to absolve Obama and his ilk of all responsibility by claiming the atrocity was triggered by events, the video and the Cairo riot over which it had no control. Rice continued, ''We could not have foreseen this. We could not have prevented this. We had no knowledge it was coming.''

Forth Question: Why was Obama so quick to blame the Innocence of Muslims video on the violent protest at the US embassy in Cairo when jihadists had threatened an attack in support of jailed terrorist; the Bland Sheikh?
An Egyptian independent newsweekly, El Fagr, based in Cairo, reported threats to the US embassy that were posted 3 days before the consulate attack with no mention of the video made in the threats. According to El Fagr, jihadi groups in Egypt, including Islamic Jihad and Al Gamaa Al Islamiyya, were calling for the release of jihaduis imprisoned in detention centers, including Guantanamo Bay. The groups called for quick release of the deadshit sheikh, Omar Abdul Rahman (the ''Blind Sheikh''). The Islamic group threatened to ''burn the US Embassy in Cairo with those in it and taking hostage those who remain alive, unless the Blind Sheikh is immediately released.'' NOTE: Abdul Rahman is serving a life sentence in a US prison for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood president has called for he to serve out the remainder of the sentence in Egypt. Fat chance!

The Way I See It....this has the potential to be Barack Obama's Jimmy Carter moment. Was Obama asleep at the wheel? Did he then cover up his failures....like he's been trying to do these past 4 years of mismanagement?

About Me

I live up to my name and speak frankly and for the silent majority so as to counter-balance the leftist, political correctness that pervades my country. I do not hold any legitimate racist feeling against anyone but I will always try to put crossed-referenced information on current events in a proper perspective that will allow for better understanding and discussions among people. My use of colourful language only adds to getting my point across. It's still a free country as far as I can see.
To put more it directly:
Freedom of speech is the paramount freedom. Without it, we struggle to exercise our other freedoms. With it, we can fight for those freedoms. It may be offensive, insulting and make some governments uncomfortable, but if this is the price to be paid for living in a society where all claims are open to question, then it is a price worth paying.
Feel free to join the I.P.A., the Institute of Public Affairs to help preserve the ideal of freedoms we are now enjoying.
Please note: Feel free to make a comment if you find it interesting and/or entertaining.